Dec 7, 2012 6:00am EST
, the broad context. we need to get rid of the debt ceiling law. it is agonistic. -- it is anachronistic. we need to get rid of it. i suggest that some version of the dollar for dollar rule should be incremented. at least considered. it does not need to be one-for- one. it could be 50%. that is not going forward. -- that is now going forward. my view is that we need to nail down how we can get to fiscal sustainability. -- the $3 trillion i proposed,get rid of the debt ceiling law. we need some form of budget rule to make sure that some discipline going toward. >> structure. >> yes, structure. we need to show people that we will stick to this plan. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for being here. i appreciate your testimony. dr. hassett, dr. zandi has indicated that he inks the debt limit crisis we had in august 2011 was bad for the economy and the country and that we should avoid it for the future. do you agree with that? >> first, yes. i think the best testament of this has been done by co- authors who have a very cool index of economic uncertainty. it is a very innovative paper. they e
Dec 5, 2012 8:00pm EST
said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left. we always have to make -- there has to be a special mass when we deal with minorities because they are too feeble minded. we really need to make concessions for them because they cannot follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, i do not think they want to ask bair. wright, ith crystal righ sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> they both -- politicians from both sides said they would be able to avoid the fiscal cliff. this included chris van hollen. also, senators mark warner and bob corker, a republican from tennessee. this is one hour. >> good morning. i'm the head of bloo
Dec 5, 2012 1:00am EST
, dividends. current laws, they go back up. dividends treated as ordinary income. capital gains goes back up to 20%. how much revenue are we talking about? if those become bargaining chips, how much are we giving up? >> under current law, the capital gains rate is scheduled to go to 20%. we are actually talking 23.8%. dividends are scheduled to go to ordinary rates. you need the 3.8% for people who have higher incomes. significant increases in both are scheduled. as you think about the fiscal cliff and what is coming, one of the few places you can see people responding to it is in their behavior around capital gains and dividends. companies are moving up to how, shareholders take a vintage of a lower rate. i expect you will see more investors realize lower capital gains in order to get lower rates. there is clearly money there. there is clearly money that has interesting, distributional characteristics. as you think about the political process trying to structure when a package with a revenue goal and a distribution goal, my prediction is you will see at least some of those increases occur.
Dec 6, 2012 8:00pm EST
in law that would help us avoid the kind of obstruction and the kind of showdowns we have had in the past over the debt ceiling. in fact, the idea was not new. it was his original idea that has been the law of the land that followed. and he offered and challenged senator reid to bring this matter for consideration by the senate. he said he would bring this to a vote in 20 minutes. and we would decide up or down whether the debt ceiling problem would be resolved once and for all under senator mcconnell proposal. and then senator mcconnell objected, say, no, no, we need 60 votes. for those who do not follow the senate, 60 votes is equivalent to a filibuster vote. so this may be a moment in senate history when a senator made a proposal, and when given a opportunity for a vote, he filibustered his own proposal. i think we have reached a new spot in the history of the senate we have never seen before. i will ask a parliamentarian to really look into this. i don't think this has ever happened before. but this calls into question if this was a kind of offer that would consider to be good faith.
Dec 6, 2012 1:00am EST
. then it sprang back to life as part of the extension of the bush tax cuts that president obama signed into law. you have a debate -- very few members dispute that it needs to be continued. the debate is over whether you continue it at the current level. there is an exemption level, $10 million for a couple. or at the white house would prefer a 45% rate. that is the debate right now. there's a split among democrats. the white house wants a less generous estate tax. red-leaning states like max baucus. host: that was the headline recently in "the wall street journal," showing the senators. at its highest, what was the estate tax? how many people did the estate tax affect? guest: we are talking tens of thousands. right now it affects 3000 estates. the exemption level is set high historical novel. it has come down significantly. big argument from conservatives is it hits small businesses and farms. the number a hits is a small fraction. host: if nothing happens, what happens to the estate tax? guest: then it goes back to the levels of an exemption of $1 million. host: and that could hit about 55,00
Dec 4, 2012 8:00pm EST
in the 1990's, a law was passed by a republican congress and signed by a democratic president. what happened? welfare enrollment dropped dramatically. millions of people gained new lives of independence. poverty rates for children fell over 20% in four years. more single moms found jobs. your welfare checks going out and more money for states to spend on child care so more moms could go to work and support themselves. welfare reform worked because it encouraged the best in people. it appealed to their desire to shape their own destiny. it helped get government out of the business of fostering dependency. here is the problem. we have not applied a waltham -- a welfare reform mindset with equal vigor across programs. in most cases, we are still trying to measure compassion by how much spend cannot how many we help. last year, spending on programs came over $1 trillion. what does that mean in practical terms? for that amount of money, you could give every single poor american a check for $22,000. instead, we just spent all of that money trying to fight poverty from government programs. now, wha